The process of revising
the Land and Resource Management Plan and environmental Impact Statement
for the White River National Forest in Colorado.

From International Mountain Bicycling Association October, 1999

The National Forest that surrounds Aspen, Vail, Glenwood Springs and
Breckenridge, Colorado, is proposing widespread closures of trails to
mountain bikers. The proposed closures appear to stem from a shift in
the agency's approach to forest management from a position of balancing
recreation with resource protection to one that places a higher priority
on ecosystem health.

In Breckenridge, the Summit Fat Tire Society is alarmed. Club leader
Laura Rossetter estimates that as many as 30 trails in the Dillon Ranger
District alone may be closed. Some of these closures would apply to
all users, while others would exclude only mountain bikers and/or motorized
vehicles. The plan does not provide scientific data or any other justification
for the selective closures. The plan takes a similar, but less restrictive,
approach to trails in the six other ranger districts within the forest.

Rossetter notes that the agency failed to identify and plan for many
significant but unofficial "social" trails in the Dillon Ranger District.
The new Plan would close all routes not identified and designated open.

Underlying the closures, the new science of conservation biology points
to the need for large expanses of wild lands where humans and human
developments are scarce. Colorado's Rocky Mountains are a good place
for that, and about one-third of the White River has been designated
Wilderness. "This is the largest Wilderness proportion of any national
forest in Colorado and represents 24% of all national forest Wilderness
in the state," the plan notes. Yet significant undeveloped landscapes
often the places mountain bikers like to ride remain unprotected. The
proposed plan would devote substantial acreage to habitat for "forest
carnivores," particularly the rare and threatened lynx and wolverine.

Rossetter agreed with the principle that roads and trails can impact
wildlife, and said some closures are okay: "I think all trail users
should ask themselves whether every road and trail on the National Forest
is truly needed. Some closures to all users are probably appropriate
to support the health of the ecosystem."

But the science studying the effects of recreationists on wildlife
is young, and there are very few studies comparing the impacts of different
user groups on animals. "We need to see evidence that justifies the
closures, particularly when they close routes to bicycling, but not
to hiking and horseback," Rossetter maintained. The plan does not provide
rationale for the proposed trail closures.

To its credit, the Draft White River Plan breaks mountain bikes into
a category separate from motorcycles, ATVs, and automobiles, and it
closes fewer bicycling routes than would the proposal put forth by conservation
groups.

Rossetter questioned the agency's plans to maintain or increase logging
on the White River National Forest. The plan would increase the acres
deemed "suitable" for timber harvest from 359,000 to 434,000. To what
extent will that activity help, or harm, the ecosystems that the plan
seeks to protect and enhance? She also doubts the ability of the Forest
Service to implement the plan. The Forest Service conducted very few
user group meetings as part of the trail designation process.

The Forest Service is taking comments until November 5, but the Summit
Fat Tire Society said that's not enough time. In a letter to Forest
Supervisor, Martha J. Ketelle, the club asked for a separate travel
planning process. "Because of the dramatic closures proposed for mountain
bikes, cyclists may overreact and not support recommendations that,
if we had time to really evaluate, may actually be acceptable," they
explained. As of press time, the Supervisor had not replied.

The White River National Forest attracts visitors from all 50 states
and many other countries. Public comment on the Draft Forest Plan is
encouraged.

The comment period for the Proposed Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan (Proposed Revised Forest Plan) and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) has been extended an additional 90 days to February
9, 2000.